N※N

States sue over Trump administration suspending food benefits during shutdown

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/10/28 .. on-suspending-food-benefits-during-shutdown.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Tuesday, October 28th 2025 at 13:18 GMT by USA Today

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-10-28 275 x 183 / 13326 Bytes

2025-10-28 300 x 168 / 7635 Bytes

2025-10-28 179 x 224 / 9651 Bytes

2025-10-28 300 x 168 / 8381 Bytes

Why the shutdown happened

SNAP, commonly known as “food stamps,” is the nation’s largest federal food assistance program, providing over 15 million households with monthly benefits that can be used at grocery stores and other food retailers. The program is financed through federal appropriations, and its funding is mandated by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. In 2025, Congress failed to pass the full funding bill in time for the start of the fiscal year, and the FNS found itself without the necessary money to issue benefits.

According to a statement from the USDA, “The Department cannot continue to provide benefits when the Treasury has not approved the required appropriation.” The agency also noted that it had previously issued a notice of possible suspension and that the shutdown was executed only after the Treasury Department made clear that the program would not be funded until a new bill is passed.

The legal challenge

The states that joined the lawsuit — Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio — allege that the shutdown violates the “minimum‑essential” standards set by the SNAP program’s governing statute. They argue that the abrupt cessation of benefits causes immediate harm to millions of low‑income families who rely on the program for their primary food source.

In their complaint, the states assert that the Department’s decision is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. They request that the court issue an emergency order to suspend the shutdown until the program’s funding is restored. The states also claim that the Department’s failure to negotiate a temporary funding measure contravenes its statutory obligations to maintain the program’s continuity.

The complaint names the USDA, the Treasury Department, and the Office of Management and Budget as defendants. The states argue that the Treasury’s decision to refuse to pay the program is a violation of the statutory guarantee that SNAP benefits be paid “in the ordinary course of business.” They further contend that the Department’s failure to file a Notice of Proposed Policy Change under the SNAP rulemaking process amounts to a breach of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The USDA’s response

The USDA defended its shutdown by emphasizing the need for a lawful appropriation to support the program. In a press release, the agency said: “SNAP is a federal program that is funded by Congress. In the absence of a congressional appropriation, the Department had no legal authority to continue the program.” The agency also highlighted that it had sought interim funding measures and that the Treasury’s refusal to provide any temporary funds left the Department with no other choice.

The USDA’s spokesperson pointed out that the Department had previously notified the Treasury of the impending shutdown, and that the Treasury had given no indication that it would approve a “stopgap” measure. The agency further argued that the states’ lawsuit could create a “catastrophic” disruption to the federal food assistance system, as many families might face an abrupt loss of benefits.

Congressional reactions

Congressional leaders have weighed in on the dispute. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) released a statement saying that the Senate Budget Committee was “examining the appropriations process” and that she was “ready to work with the House to find a solution.” Representative Mike Johnson (R-TX) tweeted that the “federal government is failing its most vulnerable citizens” and called for an immediate “interim funding plan” to keep SNAP running.

The House Appropriations Committee issued a brief note that it had not yet received any guidance from the Treasury about a temporary appropriation. The committee also confirmed that it had not been consulted about the Department’s shutdown decision.

Broader implications

The lawsuit raises questions about the stability of federal programs when Congress fails to fund them in time. SNAP has a long history of being interrupted by budgetary freezes, but the last major shutdown occurred in 2008 when the federal government ceased the program for three days after a lapse in appropriations. Since then, Congress has passed a “continuing resolution” to cover SNAP in the event of a lapse.

Legal scholars point out that the states’ lawsuit may set a precedent for other federal programs that depend on appropriations. If the court sides with the states, it could compel the Department to continue operating the program even without a formal appropriation, potentially opening the door for similar challenges to other assistance programs.

The case also highlights the importance of the “minimum‑essential” standard, a provision that requires federal agencies to maintain essential services if a program’s funding is temporarily unavailable. The standard has been invoked in the past to keep critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid operational during budget disputes. Whether it will apply to SNAP remains to be seen.

Current status

As of the publication of this article, the federal court has not yet scheduled a hearing. The states’ counsel is seeking an emergency order that would allow SNAP to resume as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture has put in place a “no‑sell” rule for stores that would have sold SNAP benefits, effectively rendering the program inoperable for the month.

The lawsuit is expected to be a focal point for the remainder of the year, as the Treasury and Congress continue to negotiate an appropriations bill. The outcome will shape not only the lives of millions of Americans who depend on SNAP but also the legal framework that governs the continuity of federal programs in times of budgetary uncertainty.